By Request: Are Hybrids a Scam?

Spokeytown writes:

Talk about the hybrid car scam! With the exception of the Prius, it seems like most hybrids have highway mileage somewhere in the 30--35 mpg range. This is a little better than those same car models with a gas engine. But I own a 1984 Honda hatchback, obviously not a hybrid, which gets 40-odd mpg on the highway, and I remember it being pretty routine in the 1980s and 1990s for economy cars or even 4 door models to have comparable mileage. I imagine it mostly has to do with the massive increase in horsepower in recent years, or maybe heavier cars as a result of safety features. But how are hybrids supposed to help us out of the global warming/foreign oil dependence trap when they are less efficient than a 24 year old non-hybrid beater? And why not just make cars like the aforesaid beater, with a hybrid engine in them?

Over time, technology improves, and we develop more efficient ways of burning gasoline as a way of making a car move forward. Those kind of advances can be used to reduce the overall quantity of gasoline burned, but they can also be used to increase the overall power of engines. That's the basic problem being pointed to here, and it's why if you want to reduce carbon emissions there's ultimately no substitute for an emissions cap or a carbon tax. If you create a financial incentive to reduce emissions, then our vast ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit will produce vehicles that accomplish that goal. If we don't, it won't, as even the very same technologies that could reduce gasoline consumption are instead turned to other purposes.

Meanwhile, it's important to remember that for the short-tun the most important thing isn't to develop futuristic new low-emissions vehicles. The low hanging fruit is to replace the very least efficient vehicles with more efficient ones. Replacing an SUV with a standard sedan does more to cut consumption than does replacing a sedan with a hybrid. Even replacing an SUV with a minivan brings about substantial reductions.

Comments

Of course highway mileage is also not where hybrid technology provides the most benefit. That is one of the reasons why diesel hybrids ultimately have more promise than gasoline hybrids.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 12:20 PM

When I was shopping for a car in the fall of 2007, I was told fairly bluntly by salesmen, supported by the official literature, that if the majority of your driving was highway a hybrid was not for you for this very reason. The technology was specifically intended for city driving with all the starts and stops and idling that can waste fuel. At least that was what the companies said. The popular press touted them as catch-all energy savers.

Things at the car dealers could have changed since then of course, and this is just anecdotal evidence, but I don't see that as a "scam" I see that as "over-hyped."

Posted by Adolphus | June 26, 2008 12:20 PM

Right-- hybrids are great as city vehicles, because they don't idle and their battery charges when you brake. Not a lot of braking or idling on the highway. If you are a NYC cabbie, buy a hybrid. If you own a fleet of cars that only drive on the Interstate, buy a conventional car. If you are one of the many of us in between, look at your usual driving patterns and try to decide what's best for you.

Posted by Freddie | June 26, 2008 12:23 PM

Spokeytown does bring up an interesting point. I, too, drive an old Civic Hatchback (1994) and, with a combination of good upkeep and driving like I have an egg under my foot, have been able to eek out a fairly consistent 40 MPG combined. Good mileage has been available for a long time if you know where to look and how to drive.

However, if you choose wisely- opting for a Prius or Civic Hybrid, you can get pretty extraordinary gas mileage. On hypermiling websites, I am seeing consistent reports of 45-50 MPG for the Civic Hybrid (as opposed to around 40, at best, for a new Civic) and 50-55 MPG for the Prius, which outstrips the tiny Yaris.

If one compares cars with similar size, hybrids win every time. However, if one compares small non-hybrid cars with large hybrid ones, of course hybrids are going to look bad.

The "Scam" of hybrids has been that they have allowed car manufacturers to build beefier cars without lowering mileage. SUV hybrids are the classic example of this.

Posted by Brad Hoehne | June 26, 2008 12:24 PM

Higher mileage is better than lower mileage. Better performance is better than worse performance. If you use hybrid technology to get better performance at the same mileage, that's a good thing.

And Adolphus is right. For somebody who's driving in traffic all the time, hybrids are way better than conventional engines.

Posted by too many steves | June 26, 2008 12:25 PM

Spokeytown does bring up an interesting point. I, too, drive an old Civic Hatchback (1994) and, with a combination of good upkeep and driving like I have an egg under my foot, have been able to eek out a fairly consistent 40 MPG combined. Good mileage has been available for a long time if you know where to look and how to drive.

However, if you choose wisely- opting for a Prius or Civic Hybrid, you can get pretty extraordinary gas mileage. On hypermiling websites, I am seeing consistent reports of 45-50 MPG for the Civic Hybrid (as opposed to around 40, at best, for a new Civic) and 50-55 MPG for the Prius, which outstrips the tiny Yaris.

If one compares cars with similar size, hybrids win every time. However, if one compares small non-hybrid cars with large hybrid ones, of course hybrids are going to look bad.

The "Scam" of hybrids has been that they have allowed car manufacturers to build beefier cars without lowering mileage. SUV hybrids are the classic example of this.

Posted by Brad Hoehne | June 26, 2008 12:26 PM

I'd like to add 2 things:

1. those old hatchbacks lose to hybrids in city driving bigtime.

2. hybrid technology is fairly new to market. GM used to have a 2 mode hybrid diesel prototype with Opel. Too bad it didn't come to market because 2 mode means it uses traditional drivetrain for highway driving. Meaning it gets an average mpg on the highway as any diesel; probably like 45 mpg, and its hybrid gets fantastic city mgp, probably around 70. Hybrid diesel seems like a natural fit, but costs were too high. Price reductions and increased costs of gas might bring those to market eventually. Plus making them plug in will reduce savings to consumers, though the source of energy for plugging in might not necessarily be "green", as most of the energy in this country is generated by coal fired power plants.

I do think that much of the hybrid mystique is that it is "hybrid" and has an "eco" marketing. Look at the mgp for a Yaris, and the price, and hybrids seem like a luxury item more than anything else. Though I think everyone agrees that hybrids of certain types of cars (taxicabs in particular) intrinsically make sense.

Posted by freddiemac | June 26, 2008 12:28 PM

Also, make sure we're talking about an apples to apples comparison. A Ford Escape Hybrid does indeed get better mileage than a Ford Escape.

That's why we shouldn't be giving credit for hybrid cars, we should be giving credit for efficient cars. That doesn't mean hyrbids are a scam, but it does mean that they can be easily co-opted for some corporate greenwashing.

Posted by Alex B. | June 26, 2008 12:31 PM

Also, make sure we're talking about an apples to apples comparison. A Ford Escape Hybrid does indeed get better mileage than a Ford Escape.

That's why we shouldn't be giving credit for hybrid cars, we should be giving credit for efficient cars. That doesn't mean hyrbids are a scam, but it does mean that they can be easily co-opted for some corporate greenwashing.

Posted by Alex B. | June 26, 2008 12:32 PM

I wonder how much of this is based on the EPA changing how they calculated MPG between now and 1984.

If you're relying on your '84 Honda's MPG as it was labeled to have in 1984, that's almost certainly a specious comparison to a modern hybrid. For one thing, even ignoring how the measurement has changed, your '84 Honda certainly doesn't get the same MPG now as it did then, simply due to mechanical wear and tear.

With the exception of the Prius, it seems like most hybrids have highway mileage somewhere in the 30--35 mpg range. This is a little better than those same car models with a gas engine.

Well, why would it be different? They're both using gasoline engines, at that point. The benefit of the hybrid comes almost completely from regenerative braking. On the highway, it's actually less efficient to use a gas engine to drive a generator to drive an electric motor to turn the wheels than to simply use a gas engine to turn the wheels, directly. You lose efficiency with every extra step.

Somebody didn't think it through, I guess.

Posted by Chet | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM

Even for highway driving, hybrids give you an efficiency bump. Hybrids use smaller, less powerful, more efficient engines and employ the electric motor to make up for that when you need more low-end torque. When you're cruising at highway speeds, you're running that smaller motor and using less fuel.

For example, the Highlander Hybrid gets 27/25 MPG city/highway, the non-hybrid gets 17/23. Obviously the big savings are around town, but you do get a bump on the highway as well. Per ten thousand highway miles, the hybrid will save you 35 gallons of fuel.

Posted by Chuchundra | June 26, 2008 12:36 PM

This is precisely the faulty thinking that slows us down. The point of hybrids is not to get rid of high mileage 10 year old hatchbacks. The point is to make a dent in the people driving the 27mpg highway/21 mpg city family sedans, or even better the 13 mpg SUV's. Pissing on hybrids because they aren't better than YOUR car is just plain silly.

Posted by jonrog1 | June 26, 2008 12:36 PM

Right now the Prius is an status symbol for the liberal upper middle class because it stands out. When you drive a Prius everyone knows you are driving a hybrid, unlike the Honda Civic Hybrid which looks just like a normal civic. If the Prius was in the same body as Corolla its would not be the flying off the lot like it is. This is not to say it is bad car, but their role status is a huge part of their appeal

Posted by E.A. | June 26, 2008 12:39 PM

Right now the Prius is an status symbol for the liberal upper middle class because it stands out. When you drive a Prius everyone knows you are driving a hybrid, unlike the Honda Civic Hybrid which looks just like a normal civic. If the Prius was in the same body as Corolla its would not be the flying off the lot like it is. This is not to say their not good car, but their role status is a huge part of their appeal

Posted by E.A. | June 26, 2008 12:40 PM

I drive a new (well, 2006) Civic, which of course is about as big as an Accord was 15 years ago. But it does get considerably (50+ percent) better mileage than that Accord did, and for that matter, gets better mileage than an early 1990s Civic (at least according to fueleconomy.gov). What hasn't been mentioned, though, is that part of the reason cars are bigger now is that they are also much, much, much safer.

Of course we need a carbon tax, but even with such, I don't think it's a given that people would prefer 1980s fuel economy and safety (not to mention horsepower) over today's worse fuel economy, superior safety, and more pickup.

Posted by bottomofthe9th | June 26, 2008 12:41 PM

One trouble with these new and future technologies is that many people who would benefit from them cannot afford them. The average American car has a lifespan of about 15 years. People who buy used cars do so because that's what they can afford. Even if the market switched wholesale today to hybrid vehicles it would be quite a while before they get distributed to the people who really need them. Not good for the climate or the economy.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 26, 2008 12:44 PM

As has been previously stated, the hybrid has its biggest advantage in stop and go driving because of regenerative braking. However, even on the open road, it has an advantage, albeit smaller, because it utilizes a smaller gasoline powered engine.

As to the comparison between 1990s Honda Civics and the newer models, I had a 1990 Honda Civic EX which got about 35 mpg on the highway. My current 2004 Honda Civic EX gets about 42 on the highway, even though it is 300 pounds heavier and has a larger engine with 20% more horsepower. The big difference is the fact that the most fuel efficient running speed has increased since that time from 45 mph to 55 mph, due to both changes in engine efficiency and aerodynamics.

Posted by SLC | June 26, 2008 12:45 PM

A few years ago I happened to look at cars and gas mileage quite intently, and, as you might suspect, it's not rocket science.

American new car buyers prefer a car with about 75 hp. Some of them will buy a car with about 60 hp. Most models introduced to the American market with less than 50 hp are withdrawn from the market after a year or two.

Find any Geo Metro and you will probably get 35-40 mpg. Find the Geo Metro with the small engine and 5-speed manual transmission (only available for three years in America) and you'll probably get about 55 mpg.

There are something like 100 car models around the world (but not available to us) that get over 50 mpg. In brief, American car companies have made "safety standards" as effective as a tariff in preventing us from buying efficient cars.

Posted by serial catowner | June 26, 2008 12:46 PM

All these posts about alternative energies and energy conservation and never once does the waste vegetable oil (wvo) phenomenon get mentioned?

www.lovecraftbiofuels.com
www.greasecar.com

Posted by Dan | June 26, 2008 12:46 PM

Le sigh. Us Yglesias readers have a lot of interests (urban planning, for instance, or guns) but car geekery is apparently not one of them.
Yes, HP has gone up, (especially on "sports sedans" and such) but the main problem with current car mileage is that *weight* has gone up enormously.
A current Honda Accord weighs as much (~3400 pounds) as some of the Mercedes S-Class sedans from the 80s.
A mid eighties civic weighed less than a ton (the late 70s version was around 1600 lbs) while the current sedan is over a ton and a half.
Cars today are taller, wider, faster, and much much safer. Like many readers, I'd personally be in favor of Honda selling an unimproved '93 civic hatchback (the VX model w/o AC got 50 mpg) for $8k, (not that they still have the tooling) but it's never gonna happen cuz' it would never meet current safety standards. Check the Smart vs. Volvo crash video if you don't believe me.

Posted by Curly | June 26, 2008 12:48 PM

I'd note that the market hasn't completely failed on this point: the Accord hybrid was a big failure, because they used the hybrid to up the power, not the mileage. But - especially from Honda - people expected better mileage, and so they viewed the Accord as a letdown. I think that the Camry hybrid split the difference on this (somewhat more power and somewhat better mileage than their most efficient Camry), and has been more successful.

But the bottom line is that the quickest route to ultra-mileage is to cut weight, and the Japanese in particular have upsized their sedans every year ('08 Civic is bigger than an '88 Camry), which makes real gas savings impossible. Imagine a ~'80 Civic with a modern hybrid power plant; you'd see 60-70 MPG, easy. But it would be small, and a bit rinky-dink feeling (skinny window frames, flat seats, etc.).

Matt's exactly right that carbon taxing/cap+trade is the only route to really pushing in the right direction; we're too accustomed to '90s-style bulk to reverse path without non-market influence (or $10/gal. gas).

Posted by JRoth | June 26, 2008 12:57 PM

Matt, you've really gotta learn to dispense with the italics every other word. It makes you easier to ignore.

Posted by qjkqjk | June 26, 2008 1:00 PM

There are even better ways to use "the magic of the market" to help with car efficiency innovation. Watch this video from TED:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51
and if you like it, here's the whole report: http://www.oilendgame.com/
The idea of a "feebate" is brilliant. Basically within any functional class of vehicle, purchasers of vehicles which are more efficient than the median receive a rebate, and those purchasing a less efficient vehicle pay a fee. The amount is approximately equal to paying up front in a lump sum the cost difference of the fuel required over the lifetime of the vehicle. It's revenue neutral as far as the government is concerned. It just puts into the market decision the fuel cost.

Posted by Paula | June 26, 2008 1:02 PM

Matt wrote:
The low hanging fruit is to replace the very least efficient vehicles with more efficient ones. Replacing an SUV with a standard sedan does more to cut consumption than does replacing a sedan with a hybrid.

Yes. Is there any established way to subsidize the replacement of low-efficiency vehicles?

Next time I buy a car, what I'd really like to do instead of pay $2000 more for a hybrid is spend $2000 to convince someone else at the low-efficiency end to buy a more efficient car. Of course this has some logistical difficulties.

Posted by mk | June 26, 2008 1:05 PM

There are even better ways to use "the magic of the market" to help with car efficiency innovation. Watch this video from TED:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51
and if you like it, here's the whole report: http://www.oilendgame.com/
The idea of a "feebate" is brilliant. Basically within any functional class of vehicle, purchasers of vehicles which are more efficient than the median receive a rebate, and those purchasing a less efficient vehicle pay a fee. The amount is approximately equal to paying up front in a lump sum the cost difference of the fuel required over the lifetime of the vehicle. It's revenue neutral as far as the government is concerned. It just puts into the market decision the fuel cost.

Posted by Paula | June 26, 2008 1:07 PM

I know Honda and Toyota both use the hybrid to get a little extra oomph, not better mileage, on their flagship sedans.

The biggest scam in the hybrid market is that the batteries have a life of around five years. A lot of the first Prius' are hitting that point now. Those owners are going to face a nasty four-figure bill to get a replacement battery.

Posted by Stav | June 26, 2008 1:07 PM

I know Honda and Toyota both use the hybrid to get a little extra oomph, not better mileage, on their flagship sedans.

The biggest scam in the hybrid market is that the batteries have a life of around five years. A lot of the first Prius' are hitting that point now. Those owners are going to face a nasty four-figure bill to get a replacement battery.

Posted by Stav | June 26, 2008 1:11 PM

The amount is approximately equal to paying up front in a lump sum the cost difference of the fuel required over the lifetime of the vehicle. It's revenue neutral as far as the government is concerned. It just puts into the market decision the fuel cost.

To be precise: this is not replacing implicit gas costs with up-front costs. Rather it is adding new up-front costs to implicit gas costs.

It may still be a useful corrective for people's failure to think about lifetime gas costs. Another easier option I'd favor, which Kevin Drum has suggested, would be to just mandate a big number on every new car sticker that estimates the 5 or 10-year total cost of gasoline for this car, at average driving rates.

Posted by mk | June 26, 2008 1:15 PM

US gas mileage peaked in the late 80's. Since then, according to the EPA, the average car has gotten heavier by about 25% (size growth, safety engineering and additional equipment) and faster, with benchmark 0-60 acceleration dropping by about 25%. And the only way that heavier vehicles get faster is by becoming more powerful (about 40%).

So while it's hard to say what mileage would have been if performance has been held constant as weight increased, there is no question that it would have been significantly higher than it is.

Part of the problem has been the horsepower race at the top of the market. The fastest and most powerful cars ever built have all been introduced within the last ten years, most of them (the horsepower race continues) within the last five. Anyone with the money can go out and buy a street car today that is more powerful than the race cars that ran at Indianapolis and Daytona in the late 1960's. And the car you buy, if you get it from Audi, BMW or Mercedes may even be a station wagon.

This horsepower war has increased performance all the way down the model chain, from million dollar exotics to 25k sedans and hatchbacks. For instance, if you happen to drive a mint condition Corvette or E-Type Jaguar from say 1963, don't get into a drag race with a Subaru WRX hatchback. You'll lose. And you can't carry groceries in the back.

It's been bizarre these last years as the power wars have continued to make cars ever faster, to hear and read ferocious arguments over fuel efficiency versus safety where the safety advocates have insisted that the ONLY way to increase mileage is to decrease vehicle weight.

When I bought my last car I made a decision on the sales floor that made a 30% difference in my highway mileage. I chose the four cylinder over the six cylinder engine.

Posted by davido | June 26, 2008 1:32 PM

US gas mileage peaked in the late 80's. Since then, according to the EPA, the average car has gotten heavier by about 25% (size growth, safety engineering and additional equipment) and faster, with benchmark 0-60 acceleration dropping by about 25%. And the only way that heavier vehicles get faster is by becoming more powerful (about 40%).

So while it's hard to say what mileage would have been if performance has been held constant as weight increased, there is no question that it would have been significantly higher than it is.

Part of the problem has been the horsepower race at the top of the market. The fastest and most powerful cars ever built have all been introduced within the last ten years, most of them (the horsepower race continues) within the last five. Anyone with the money can go out and buy a street car today that is more powerful than the race cars that ran at Indianapolis and Daytona in the late 1960's. And the car you buy, if you get it from Audi, BMW or Mercedes may even be a station wagon.

This horsepower war has increased performance all the way down the model chain, from million dollar exotics to 25k sedans and hatchbacks. For instance, if you happen to drive a mint condition Corvette or E-Type Jaguar from say 1963, don't get into a drag race with a Subaru WRX hatchback. You'll lose. And you can't carry groceries in the back.

It's been bizarre these last years as the power wars have continued to make cars ever faster, to hear and read ferocious arguments over fuel efficiency versus safety where the safety advocates have insisted that the ONLY way to increase mileage is to decrease vehicle weight.

When I bought my last car I made a decision on the sales floor that made a 30% difference in my highway mileage. I chose the four cylinder over the six cylinder engine.

Posted by davido | June 26, 2008 1:34 PM

US gas mileage peaked in the late 80's. Since then, according to the EPA, the average car has gotten heavier by about 25% (size growth, safety engineering and additional equipment) and faster, with benchmark 0-60 acceleration dropping by about 25%. And the only way that heavier vehicles get faster is by becoming more powerful (about 40%).

So while it's hard to say what mileage would have been if performance has been held constant as weight increased, there is no question that it would have been significantly higher than it is.

Part of the problem has been the horsepower race at the top of the market. The fastest and most powerful cars ever built have all been introduced within the last ten years, most of them (the horsepower race continues) within the last five. Anyone with the money can go out and buy a street car today that is more powerful than the race cars that ran at Indianapolis and Daytona in the late 1960's. And the car you buy, if you get it from Audi, BMW or Mercedes may even be a station wagon.

This horsepower war has increased performance all the way down the model chain, from million dollar exotics to 25k sedans and hatchbacks. For instance, if you happen to drive a mint condition Corvette or E-Type Jaguar from say 1963, don't get into a drag race with a Subaru WRX hatchback. You'll lose. And you can't carry groceries in the back.

It's been bizarre these last years as the power wars have continued to make cars ever faster, to hear and read ferocious arguments over fuel efficiency versus safety where the safety advocates have insisted that the ONLY way to increase mileage is to decrease vehicle weight.

When I bought my last car I made a decision on the sales floor that made a 30% difference in my highway mileage. I chose the four cylinder over the six cylinder engine.

Posted by davido | June 26, 2008 1:37 PM

Hybrid's a scam? Certainly not...

Today's ICE engines try to mix air with fuel at a perfect 14.7:1 stoichiometric ratio. I say "try" b/c the computer controls are constantly adjusting the mixture while you drive to try to achieve a ratio close to that ideal.

The really high mileage cars from the early nineties were tuned so that they had a lean burn economy cruise of something like 20+:1. The Honda CRX HF and Geo Metro both spring to mind. Both got almost 60mpg. Both were also teeny tiny cars that - as has already been pointed out by Curly - wouldn't pass today's safety regs - most notably side impact standards.

The problem with lean burn economy is that the car produces way more NOx emissions. So you have to invest in ways to get around them - super duper catalytic converters (read super expensive) or some other such withcraft that I'm not familiar with. There's no way that one of these engines as-is would pass today's emissions tests for new cars.

The really good thing about our current set of hybrids is that they are marginally better than their gasoline brethren and they have developed the engineering expertise in the major manufacturers and, more importantly, increased the production capacity of suppliers so that now we're ready to start:

(1) making lots more regular hybrids
(2) making plugin hybrids

(1) Honda is about to start making a smaller cheaper hybrid (20K or under) based on their global small car platform (see Honda Fit). It should be noted that they are using NiMH batteries rather than Li-Ion batteries b/c they feel that they are a more proven technology. GM and to some extent Toyota are gambling that they have enough time to make Li-Ion batteries (and their suppliers) ready for primetime.

(2) According to the Atlantic's article - well worth a read - Toyota is going with a pilot plugin project of perhaps a few hundred while GM... well you know what they're attempting to pull off with the Volt. I wish them both well.

One other thing - the diesel technology currently under development - pretty freaking cool too.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/25/audi-and-auto-bild-drive-the-a4-around-central-europe/

Think Audi A4 with 35/57 MPG (combined cycle 46MPG).

Posted by MarcInSeattle | June 26, 2008 1:38 PM

Curly:

Cars today are taller, wider, faster, and much much safer.

Do we know to what degree this is an "arms race" situation, where every car gets heavier but collectively cars are not safer?

I'm sure that some of the safety gains are real -- airbags, ABS, better brakes, crumple zones, etc.

But it is also true that just randomly adding weight to a car helps it be safer in a collision, by marginally reducing the safety of all other cars it might crash with. I guess I wonder how much of the safety improvement of cars is of this "zero-sum" form, just empty weight.

I know I used to know people who wanted a big buick or SUV for their kid because it was "safer." Yes, safer for your kid. Less safe for everyone else.

Posted by mk | June 26, 2008 1:41 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at thttp://eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/gasaholism.html and http://eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gas-mileage-thoughts.html.

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 1:45 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at thttp://eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/gasaholism.html and http://eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gas-mileage-thoughts.html.

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 1:48 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at thttp://eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/gasaholism.html and http://eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gas-mileage-thoughts.html.

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 1:53 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/gasaholism.html and eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gas-mileage-thoughts.html.

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 1:55 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/gasaholismand eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gas-mileage-thoughts

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 2:00 PM

I'm curious if there's a way to take a contemporary fairly high mileage car and trick it out to sacrifice performance for fuel economy.

Does anyone know?

Posted by Brad Hoehne | June 26, 2008 2:11 PM

Brad, if you have the patience to look through Wired's Autopia (their topics listings don't work) you might find a guy who put fairings on a reasonable-mileage car and made it high mileage.

Generally speaking, though, cars are so highly engineered that you're better off putting the effort into finding the rare high-mileage car than in building your own.

Posted by serial catowner | June 26, 2008 2:28 PM

@ Stav: "The biggest scam in the hybrid market is that the batteries have a life of around five years. A lot of the first Prius' are hitting that point now. Those owners are going to face a nasty four-figure bill to get a replacement battery."

Hmm. Guess you haven't actually heard about the nationally mandated 7-year warranty on the hybrid batteries, or the state mandated 10-year warranty in CA.

I drive a Prius that gets better highway mileage than city mileage, about 46 or 47 highway, about 43 or 44 city. That's mostly a matter of the absolutely horrible traffic design in my town in CA. We have a basic philosophy of making driving as unpleasant as possible instead of as efficient as possible. Stop and go traffic kills a hybrid's mileage in the same way it does for traditional engines because of the waste of energy in acceleration and deceleration, even if regenerative breaking makes up for some portion of that. But it's also a matter of the highways around here, which tend not to be 70 mph speeds since they wind through the mountains. My take from this is that the best mileage for a hybrid (or at least the Prius) would be in a place that is mostly flat and has streets designed for 45-55 mph with long stretches without red lights. The car does excellently when it can coast with just slight inputs from the battery. I'm thinking of a lot of midsized Midwestern cities that sprawl a bit. This isn't to say that the best mileage gains over other cars isn't in the city, but that the best mileage for a hybrid isn't in stop and go traffic.

@ E. A.: The "Priuses are just middle-class liberal status symbols" trope is so tired and boring. If you can't think of anything smarter to say than that ...

Posted by Loneoak | June 26, 2008 2:45 PM

"I'm curious if there's a way to take a contemporary fairly high mileage car and trick it out to sacrifice performance for fuel economy."

Good question.

Consumers Reports does keep tabs on rolling resistance tires. That's probably a 1% pick up right there and no, I'm not being sarcastic - every little bit helps.

There are after market chips available that plug in to the electronic control module (ECM) of your car's engine and re-tune the shift points and timing for more power but a quick check of Google did not reveal ones specifically designed to increase MPG. They may be out there though.

Finally, you could try finding a group of hypermilers online and learn from them how to adapt your driving habits for better MPG. Granted this is kind of like joining up with a group of marathon runners when all you're really looking to do is drop 10 pounds but I'm sorry that's about the best I can offer right now.

Posted by MarcInSeattle | June 26, 2008 2:48 PM

Given the popularity of hybrids (and that didn't just start this year or last year) and minivans, given that there are multiple hybrid SUVs, and given that Toyota has sold a hybrid minivan in Japan since 2001, why are there no hybrid minivans offered in the US?

It seems like a no-brainer. Lots of soccer moms (and dads) want the carrying capacity of a minivan but want something that gets better than 20-25 mpg. Wouldn't the first automaker to offer a hybrid minivan, Toyota or Honda or even GM make a killing?

I've read that supposedly Toyota is concerned that if they sold the Estima -- they hybrid van they sell in Japan -- in the US, they'd be worried that it would cannabilize its Sienna market share. But wouldn't also take from the non-hybrid minivan share of the other makers? It just doesn't make sense.

Posted by Bragan | June 26, 2008 2:56 PM

Re The Eclecticist

Apparently, there is some problem with the link as blogger claims that it doesn't exist. Be that as it may, I can only repeat my experience that my 2004 Honda Civic EX gets significantly better mileage then did my 1990 Honda Civic EX (some 7 mpg at freeway speeds).

Posted by SLC | June 26, 2008 2:56 PM

Find the Geo Metro with the small engine and 5-speed manual transmission (only available for three years in America) and you'll probably get about 55 mpg.

I loved my old Geo Metro (it was killed in a tragic accident many years back). My second one rusted out, and I also wanted a four-door for my kid. I don't need a minivan, but I didn't want to have to slide the seat forward every time we went on a shopping trip.

I get 50.1 mpg right now with my Prius, about 50-50 highway/stop-and-go driving. No complaints. (And yeah, we did buy the Prius for its looks-- I thought the Honda was fugly.)

Posted by Persia | June 26, 2008 2:58 PM

I'm curious if there's a way to take a contemporary fairly high mileage car and trick it out to sacrifice performance for fuel economy.

Does anyone know?

Posted by Brad Hoehne | June 26, 2008 2:11 PM

Sure thing Brad. I know a guy who did just that to his Chevy Cavalier. Step one, take scissors and cut the power steering. Then AC and radio. That will get you at least 5 to 10 mpg.

Posted by freddiemac | June 26, 2008 3:03 PM

re: mk

Check out this crash test (not official, obviously) of an offset front impact from BBC's "Fifth Gear." I'm a big believer in Volvos, but holy shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

Posted by Curly | June 26, 2008 3:09 PM

Those kind of advances can be used to reduce the overall quantity of gasoline burned, but they can also be used to increase the overall power of engines.

If we're going to play engineer/pundit it's best to keep the facts straight. Power and fuel economy are not a trade off, in fact both improve when gas is burned more efficiently. Efficiency simply means that one extracts more usable energy from combustion of a specific amount of gasoline. For a piston engine there are two factors which determine efficiency: how much of the fuel charge is burnt (earlier engines left a lot of gas unburned, especially when they were out of tune, which is why some old muscle cars give off a strong scent of raw gasoline when idling) and how long it takes that fuel charge to burn, since it doesn't do you much good to be pushing on the piston when it's at the bottom of the cylinder. Improving both of those factors does two things: increases power, since you are pushing harder against the piston, and two increases fuel efficiency since you don't have to put as much fuel into the cylinder, or run as many combustion cycles, to get the same power out of the engine. The sole reasons fuel economy has stagnated are; new cars are more massive on average which means more energy is required to accelerate the car to the same velocity as a lighter car, and new cars are larger on average, which all else being equal, requires more energy to overcome air resistance at the same velocity as a smaller car. The "horsepower wars" are simply the byproduct of more efficient engines because making an engine more efficient necessarily makes it more powerful.

That said, I believe it's also the case that the average capacity of engines in new cars sold has been increasing, and because combustion is most efficient at a 14.7 ratio of fuel mass to air mass, average fuel economy is decreasing because the engines require more fuel per cycle. The obvious engineering answer to this is not to burn fuel when you don't need to, GM, Mercedes and Honda build engines that turn off cylinders, decreasing the engine's effective capacity, to improve fuel economy. The technology has not caught on for a variety of reasons, although it's actually still being improved and sold in new cars, just no longer highly touted.

As in the response to the '73 oil shock, automakers are reversing the trends that have held fuel economy back. Although previously reserved for expensive sports cars and high end luxury vehicles there is much more interest in reducing vehicle mass through alternative materials like aluminum and carbon fiber and alternative construction techniques (a big deal for mass produced automobiles). The lighter cars can offer the performance customers are used to with less powerful engines (since what people really want is a high power to weight ratio, all the power in the world is useless if your car weighs as much as the Titanic) so engine capacities are also going to be reduced although there is a marketing problem to overcome in that area. As an example, Mercedes has a concept car of an S-Class type vehicle (the largest car Mercedes makes) with a 1.8 liter engine (a size class currently found in cars like the Toyota Corolla or Honda Fit). Currently the smallest engine in an S-Class is 3.5 liters

As for hybrids, the host of comments noting that the technology only makes sense when you can recover energy from braking, as in city driving are correct. So it doesn't help with highway fuel economy. Plug-in hybrids can take advantage of the greater efficiency of a power plant to boost fuel economy too, although the further a trip is beyond a plug in's electric only range (typically 20-40 miles) the less advantage they have relative to a regular piston powered car.

Posted by Free Lunch | June 26, 2008 3:27 PM

I think the whole "hybrids are city cars" is wrong-headed. My hybrid Civic is great on the highway. Usually 45-50 mpg, sometimes up to 60. City driving is a few mpg lower.

The highway benefit is not derived so much from the extra electrical power as it is from the fact that the gasoline engine is pretty tiny. So even when its running entirely on gas, its not actually burning that much fuel.

Posted by Spike | June 26, 2008 3:29 PM

Those kind of advances can be used to reduce the overall quantity of gasoline burned, but they can also be used to increase the overall power of engines.

If we're going to play engineer/pundit it's best to keep the facts straight. Power and fuel economy are not a trade off, in fact both improve when gas is burned more efficiently. Efficiency simply means that one extracts more usable energy from combustion of a specific amount of gasoline. For a piston engine there are two factors which determine efficiency: how much of the fuel charge is burnt (earlier engines left a lot of gas unburned, especially when they were out of tune, which is why some old muscle cars give off a strong scent of raw gasoline when idling) and how long it takes that fuel charge to burn, since it doesn't do you much good to be pushing on the piston when it's at the bottom of the cylinder. Improving both of those factors does two things: increases power, since you are pushing harder against the piston, and two increases fuel efficiency since you don't have to put as much fuel into the cylinder, or run as many combustion cycles, to get the same power out of the engine. The sole reasons fuel economy has stagnated are; new cars are more massive on average which means more energy is required to accelerate the car to the same velocity as a lighter car, and new cars are larger on average, which all else being equal, requires more energy to overcome air resistance at the same velocity as a smaller car. The "horsepower wars" are simply the byproduct of more efficient engines because making an engine more efficient necessarily makes it more powerful.

That said, I believe it's also the case that the average capacity of engines in new cars sold has been increasing, and because combustion is most efficient at a 14.7 ratio of fuel mass to air mass, average fuel economy is decreasing because the engines require more fuel per cycle. The obvious engineering answer to this is not to burn fuel when you don't need to, GM, Mercedes and Honda build engines that turn off cylinders, decreasing the engine's effective capacity, to improve fuel economy. The technology has not caught on for a variety of reasons, although it's actually still being improved and sold in new cars, just no longer highly touted.

As in the response to the '73 oil shock, automakers are reversing the trends that have held fuel economy back. Although previously reserved for expensive sports cars and high end luxury vehicles there is much more interest in reducing vehicle mass through alternative materials like aluminum and carbon fiber and alternative construction techniques (a big deal for mass produced automobiles). The lighter cars can offer the performance customers are used to with less powerful engines (since what people really want is a high power to weight ratio, all the power in the world is useless if your car weighs as much as the Titanic) so engine capacities are also going to be reduced although there is a marketing problem to overcome in that area. As an example, Mercedes has a concept car of an S-Class type vehicle (the largest car Mercedes makes) with a 1.8 liter engine (a size class currently found in cars like the Toyota Corolla or Honda Fit). Currently the smallest engine in an S-Class is 3.5 liters

As for hybrids, the host of comments noting that the technology only makes sense when you can recover energy from braking, as in city driving are correct. So it doesn't help with highway fuel economy. Plug-in hybrids can take advantage of the greater efficiency of a power plant to boost fuel economy too, although the further a trip is beyond a plug in's electric only range (typically 20-40 miles) the less advantage they have relative to a regular piston powered car.

Posted by Free Lunch | June 26, 2008 3:30 PM

Over time, technology improves, and we develop more efficient ways of burning gasoline as a way of making a car move forward. Those kind of advances can be used to reduce the overall quantity of gasoline burned, but they can also be used to increase the overall power of engines. That's the basic problem being pointed to here

It's not a "problem." Hybrid technology allows you to either increase the size/power of a vehicle for the same fuel cost, or maintain the same size/power of a vehicle for a lower fuel cost. The market decides which tradeoff it prefers. To date, most implementations of hybrid technology have been geared more towards increasing power than saving fuel, because gas prices were not really an issue. But now that gas prices have risen significantly, the focus is likely to shift to using hybrid technology to reduce fuel consumption.

Meanwhile, it's important to remember that for the short-tun the most important thing isn't to develop futuristic new low-emissions vehicles. The low hanging fruit is to replace the very least efficient vehicles with more efficient ones.

Good idea. Those billions of dollars you want to spend on expanding mass transit would be put to much better use subsidizing the purchase of newer, more fuel-efficient cars by lower-income households that are currently driving older, gas-guzzling vehicles and can't afford to upgrade.

Posted by Mixner | June 26, 2008 3:35 PM

"Next time I buy a car, what I'd really like to do instead of pay $2000 more for a hybrid is spend $2000 to convince someone else at the low-efficiency end to buy a more efficient car. Of course this has some logistical difficulties." mk

Is it that we need people at the low efficiency end to buy a more efficient car or that we need to get people to stop buying low efficiency vehicles? I have a low efficiency car. If I sell it and buy a high efficiency car someone else would be driving my old low efficiency vehicle.

I don't even know how to assess the energy cost of junking it. Would the market for vehicles then cause car makers to build another car and if so what's the cost of that compared to getting a long life out of existing vehicles?

Posted by Robbie | June 26, 2008 3:48 PM

Spike said:

I think the whole "hybrids are city cars" is wrong-headed. My hybrid Civic is great on the highway. Usually 45-50 mpg, sometimes up to 60. City driving is a few mpg lower.

And a VW Jetta TDI will probably get you the same or better highway mileage with a more powerful engine to boot (plus some Fahrvergnügen for whatever that's worth). As other posters have pointed out there are plenty of 40+ mpg non-hybrid cars around, but there aren't many such new cars on the US market. I have nothing against hybrids, but they are not a silver bullet, they represent a particular solution to a particular problem, namely the energy wasted by the brakes, but it's dishonest to claim they solve all problems with fuel economy. It's also interesting that real world tests of diesel fuel economy tend to surpass the EPA highway cycle result, I'm not sure why but I do know European car manufacturers have complained that EPA tests don't accurately reflect actual fuel economy for quite some time.

Posted by Free Lunch | June 26, 2008 3:49 PM

"Next time I buy a car, what I'd really like to do instead of pay $2000 more for a hybrid is spend $2000 to convince someone else at the low-efficiency end to buy a more efficient car. Of course this has some logistical difficulties." mk

Is it that we need people at the low efficiency end to buy a more efficient car or that we need to get people to stop buying new low efficiency vehicles? I have a low efficiency car. If I sell it and buy a high efficiency car someone else would be driving my old low efficiency vehicle.

I don't even know how to assess the energy cost of junking it. Would the market for vehicles then cause car makers to build another car and if so what's the cost of that compared to getting a long life out of existing vehicles?

Posted by Robbie | June 26, 2008 3:50 PM

Mixner,

There are about 250 million passenger cars in the United States. Even at a very generous $20,000 per new high tech car, to replace just 1% of that fleet would cost about $50 billion. Which means even getting to 20% would cost about $1 trillion.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 3:54 PM

Lots of soccer moms (and dads) want the carrying capacity of a minivan but want something that gets better than 20-25 mpg.

'Carrying' as in passengers, or 'stuff in the back'?

Curly: that's quite a video. (Fifth Gear is Five, though, not the BBC.) And the comments emphasises serial catowner's point: plenty of ENCAP 5-star small cars that aren't on sale in the US, at least in part because it's an expensive pain to get US safety certification for new models.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 26, 2008 3:55 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/gasaholism.html and eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gas-mileage-thoughts.html.

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 3:58 PM

Even at a very generous $20,000 per new high tech car, to replace just 1% of that fleet would cost about $50 billion.

Ah, you forget that the silly boy's argument-efficiency standards vary greatly between 'his own' and 'everyone else's'. The glibertarian ameliorism fairy is going to magic up fifty million electric pickup trucks out of pixie dust and bullshit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 26, 2008 4:04 PM

That's the basic problem being pointed to here, and it's why if you want to reduce carbon emissions there's ultimately no substitute for an emissions cap or a carbon tax.

This may be a silly question, but why do we need a carbon tax? Why not just raise the CAFE standards? Doesn't it accomplish the same thing (ie a substitute)?

Posted by Just Karl | June 26, 2008 4:39 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/gasaholism.html and eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gas-mileage-thoughts.html.

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 4:52 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/gasaholismand eclecticdialectics.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-gas-mileage-thoughts.

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 5:03 PM

Some of the problem is that today's hybrids aren't just designed to create the best mileage. They're designed to get good mileage AND meet the demands for performance, etc. that the market was making several years ago when today's hybrids were in development. It will take a while for the manufacturers to react to today's market demand for mileage, mileage and more mileage. By the way, the reader is right that the basic Honda civic had better gas mileage years ago than it does today. Check out my posts at EclecticDialectics over at Blogspot.

Posted by The Eclecticist | June 26, 2008 5:04 PM

I was wondering, is some of the problem perhaps that today's hybrids aren't just designed to get the best gas mileage? Sometimes I wonder whether they are both designed to get good mileage AND meet demands for performance, etc.

If only there were a person, perhaps a commenter, that had the answer to my question...

Posted by mk | June 26, 2008 5:26 PM

There are about 250 million passenger cars in the United States. Even at a very generous $20,000 per new high tech car, to replace just 1% of that fleet would cost about $50 billion. Which means even getting to 20% would cost about $1 trillion.

Ah but the Mixnermobile 3000 will be made of paper mache and have a hybrid engine (runs on cooked statistics and umbrage).

A great many poor people live in places that, today, require powerful vehicles. Appalachia, for example, is not a place I'd want a Prius. Road conditions are pretty bad and you need some clearance and oomph. But a Mixnerian market solution would eventually produce a hybrid vehicle one could use to cross a creek. Eventually.

In any event, I hope he runs his subsidize-go-carts-for-the-poor idea past his buddies at CATO. A lot of heads would explode. Though I'm looking forward to the soon to come post where he details how such a thing might work.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 26, 2008 5:43 PM

DTM,

There are about 250 million passenger cars in the United States. Even at a very generous $20,000 per new high tech car, to replace just 1% of that fleet would cost about $50 billion.

Will it ever be possible for you to respond to what I actually write, or will you forever continue to pretend I said something completely different, and respond to that made-up statement instead?

I said "subsidizing the purchase of newer, more fuel-efficient cars by lower-income households that are currently driving older, gas-guzzling vehicles and can't afford to upgrade" not "replace 1% of all existing cars with a $20,000 new high tech car."

Posted by Mixner | June 26, 2008 5:56 PM

Matthew writes,

If you create a financial incentive to reduce emissions, then our vast ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit will produce vehicles that accomplish that goal.

We already have such an incentive: the price of gasoline.

If you want people to actually use the shiny new transit systems you propose to build for them, you need to make driving less attractive relative to transit than it is now, not more. Every advance in auto fuel-efficiency makes driving more attractive than it would otherwise be, and reduces the chance that drivers will switch to transit.

Posted by Mixner | June 26, 2008 6:10 PM

Mixner,

Actually, the full quote was:

"Those billions of dollars you want to spend on expanding mass transit would be put to much better use subsidizing the purchase of newer, more fuel-efficient cars by lower-income households that are currently driving older, gas-guzzling vehicles and can't afford to upgrade."

I'm just pointing out to you the likely magnitudes involved in trying to use subsidies to significantly increase the pace at which people buy new cars, and my point is that even putting many billions of dollars into such a program would only have a marginal effect.

Not that I am opposed to subsidies for high-efficiency automobiles (and for that matter penalties for low-efficiency automobiles, which you could use to fund the subsidies). But any such program isn't likely to significantly change the pace at which the U.S. car fleet turns over (again unless you dump truly huge sums into this program). Rather, the more reasonable goal would be to simply shift market shares in favor of more fuel efficient vehicles.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 6:24 PM

DTM,

I'm just pointing out to you the likely magnitudes involved in trying to use subsidies to significantly increase the pace at which people buy new cars,

No you're not. You're inventing an absurdly implausible scenario (the government buys 2.5 million new high-tech $20,000 cars and gives them away) that is nothing like what I proposed.

Not that I am opposed to subsidies for high-efficiency automobiles (and for that matter penalties for low-efficiency automobiles, which you could use to fund the subsidies).

Terrific. More government subsidies for high-efficiency automobiles means less government money available for transit, and less demand for transit. You're arguing against yourself again.

Posted by Mixner | June 26, 2008 6:45 PM

My wife and I are on our fourth generation of Civics. We may drive faster than Spokeytown. The best we saw from a '78, '84, '86, and '95 Civic was the mid-30's.

Our '07 hybrid, the heaviest of the lot, gets 42.x mpg with a/c always on, a bit of city driving, and 60 mph on the highway stretches. When we kill the a/c and keep it a 50 on the highway, the average climbs to the mid-fifties.

Posted by cmholm | June 26, 2008 7:08 PM

Mixner,

I'll again try to keep this simple so you can understand why I support both subsidies for more efficient cars and subsidies for more public transit.

More use of highly efficient cars (in some cases) would have positive externalities.

More use of public transit (in some cases) would have positive externalities.

More use of both (in the relevant cases respectively) would have more positive externalities than either alone.

Hence I support the third case as the goal for our transportation subsidies policy. That is because my preferred goal isn't to maximize the use of public transit. Rather, my preferred goal is to maximize the positive externalities resulting from our transportation subsidies taken as a whole.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 7:24 PM

DTM,

That is because my preferred goal isn't to maximize the use of public transit.

Do you favor a larger market share for mass transit (of total surface transportation passenger-miles) than currently exists, a smaller one, the same, or don't you care about market share? Given your constant cheerleading for mass transit in general, especially rail, it certainly seems like you favor a general shift in overall transportation share from cars to transit. Do you favor such a shift or not?

Rather, my preferred goal is to maximize the positive externalities resulting from our transportation subsidies taken as a whole.

Huh? Why is "maximizing positive externalities" your goal rather than maximizing net benefit?

Posted by Mixner | June 26, 2008 8:07 PM

Re: Battery life in hybrids

The batteries in my 2001 Prius are at 8 years and I still have two years to go on the warranty. And since they're pretty standard sealed lead-acid technology I don't expect a "four figure" replacement cost. My wife's car is a 2004 Prius - also lead-acid battery technology.

Stav, you're thinking about the latest Lithium-Ion battery technology to get into thousands of dollars for replacement.

And you can expect the cost of batteries to drop dramatically as the tecnology is improved. Anybody remember when catalytic converters were going to double the cost of a car so that only the wealthy could afford to drive? Anybody even thought about the cost of a catalytic converter recently??

Posted by Butch | June 26, 2008 8:17 PM

As an aside, the engines we're running nowadays are basically the same ones we ran in the '70's. The difference? In short, emissions regulations. The long version: a mile of vacuum hoses and a carb were replaced by a micro computer and a fuel injection system.

If you look back at the byproducts of an ideal gasoline/air combustion, it's pretty clean. Computer control made that possible, and better fuel consumption as a by-product. A hybrid gains that last little bit of efficiency by trying to keep the engine running either near the peak of its torque curve, or not at all.

We've gotten about all we're probably going to get from the efficiency standpoint. The next step will need to be in weight reduction, and/or non-fossil fuel power sources, all the way back to the initial system inputs (farm, utilities, factories).

Posted by cmholm | June 26, 2008 8:30 PM

Horsepower limits. I know, Lady Liberty will throw down her torch and die of grief. Do it anyway.

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 26, 2008 8:36 PM

check this forecast.....hybrids aren't going to keep lots of poor folks on the road. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/06/report-projects.html

Posted by